The Ancaster incident was an attack on the Upper Canadian government official and politician George Rolph on June 3, 1826, in Ancaster, Upper Canada. Members of the Tory elite, motivated by suspected adultery and dislike of Rolph, dragged Rolph from his home and proceeded to tar and feather him. At the subsequent trials, government officials such as the solicitor general Henry John Boulton and the attorney general refused to prosecute the cases; instead, they recused themselves or acted as counsel for the accused. This led to several proceedings, in which Rolph was represented by his brother John Rolph, to determine which judges and court proceedings would be used for the trials. None of the defendants were criminally prosecuted, and Rolph received a verdict of £20 from two of the defendants; his appeal to increase the amount paid was unsuccessful.
Reformers, the political opponents of the Tories, cited the incident as evidence of the Tories' engaging in political violence to maintain their power, contributing to the Reformers' victory in the 1828 elections for the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada. The Gore District magistrates dismissed Rolph from his position as their clerk, leading to a legislative inquiry into the dismissal and Rolph's reinstatement to the role. John Walpole Willis, a judge in the civil lawsuit's appeal, admonished government officials for not pursuing criminal charges. This incident contributed to the legislative assembly investigating the abuse of power perpetuated by public prosecutors. Historians have cited the incident to highlight the tensions between the ruling elite and the growing agrarian society in Upper Canada, resulting in the Tories using violence in an attempt to retain their political and social influence within the province.
Background
In the 1820s, citizens in places around the world questioned government reforms proposed by the ruling aristocracy. In Upper Canada, the ruling class was the Family Compact, colloquially called the Tories. They often appointed their members to political positions, believing their rule would provide more economic prosperity and political stability than leaders chosen through a democratic process. Those opposed to Tory rule were called reformers and wanted to expand the rights of citizens, particularly recent immigrants to Upper Canada from the United States. These policies threatened the political power of the Tories. Both groups relied upon sufficient appeal of their ideological system among the general population to obtain and maintain political power.
George Rolph was appointed as a clerk of the peace for Gore District in 1816. This position gave Rolph power over regional government affairs and caused him to work closely with members of the Tory elite. Rolph refused to associate with the Tories socially, avoiding galas and declining to give a toast at parties. He also refused to use his position to support the entrenchment of the ruling aristocrats, causing them to be hostile towards him. Many in the Tory elite believed that if Rolph left his position, a clerk friendlier to implementing Tory objectives would be appointed.
Rolph was a reformer; his brother John Rolph was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada in 1824 under the Reform party label. John proposed that members of the Legislative Council of Upper Canada be elected rather than appointed to their positions; this change would make it more difficult for Tories to become members of this body. This and other Reform proposals caused the Gore District elite to dislike John, and by extension his brother George. John stated in a letter that his enemies, referring to Tories, were pursuing him and George due to his opposition to Upper Canadian society. At the time of the attack, John was in England to petition the Colonial Office to give citizenship rights to Americans who had moved to Canada. It is possible that some attackers of this incident wanted to signal their displeasure to John about his advocacy for this policy change.
A woman named Mrs. Evans left England with her child and travelled to Canada with George Rolph. Rolph allowed her to stay in his home, as she claimed that her husband was physically abusive towards her. Although she occupied a section of the home different from Rolph's bedroom, this arrangement caused rumours to spread that Rolph was committing adultery with Evans. A week before the incident, Evans's husband visited the nearby town of Dundas and tried to convince her to return to England with him.
Incident
On the night of June 3, 1826, a group of Tory men met at the home of James Hamilton, a doctor and magistrate in Gore District. They chose to meet there because of its proximity to Rolph's home. The idea to tar and feather Rolph was probably suggested by Titus Simons; the practice was popular in New England, where Simons lived before his family fled to Canada as loyalists during the American Revolution. Other members of the group were Alexander Robertson, Simons's son-in-law, George Gurnett, Allan MacNab, and Alexander Chewett. Hamilton also invited his friend John Paterson to join the group, but Paterson refused and described this invitation in a subsequent trial. The group dined and drank alcohol before leaving.
The men went to the inn where Mr. Evans was staying, and all except one were dressed in disguises. They threatened Evans, accusing him of selling his wife, then dragged him out of the inn to speak with him about the matter outside.
The group, probably consisting of most of the same members that visited Evans, arrived at Rolph's home in Ancaster, Upper Canada. They were dressed in disguises consisting of sheets for clothing, with masks or black make-up disguising their faces. The disguises were probably meant to make Rolph and other witnesses believe that the assailants were of the lower-class community, making it harder to identify them. The mob invaded the home at around midnight, bound and blindfolded Rolph, dragged him outside to a field, removed his clothes, and applied tar to his skin while threatening him with more harm, including castration. On the way to the house, the group lost the feathers they were planning on using, so they gathered feathers from Rolph's pillow and applied them on top of the tar. The group also threatened to maim Rolph. This incident left Rolph half-conscious. It was noted at the civil trial afterwards that Mrs. Evans was not in Rolph's bed when the raid happened.
After the incident
Rolph hired his brother, John Rolph, as his lawyer during the litigations. John advised George to postpone laying criminal charges, as it would be his word against that of the accused assailants. Instead, they waited until the assailants told others of their role in the incident.
In November, Rolph sent an affidavit to the province's lieutenant governor, Peregrine Maitland, implicating Hamilton as one of the attackers. Rolph asked Maitland to investigate Hamilton's role in the attack, as they worked together in the justice office of the region. Maitland responded that he could not initiate any action against Hamilton until a jury determined that Hamilton was guilty of a crime, and encouraged Rolph to initiate a civil lawsuit.
Civil trial Ten months after the incident, George filed a civil lawsuit in the District of Gore Assizes Court against the three assailants he could identify: Simons, Hamilton and Robertson. His lawsuit was for £1000 () for trespassing on his property and assault. Rolph filed the case in this court because it would be presided over by a visiting judge and local jury, and avoid the biases of the magistrates in Gore District.
The civil trial began on August 25, 1827. The judge was James B. Macaulay. George, as the plaintiff, retained his brother John as his lawyer, with William Warren Baldwin serving as one of his co-counsels. The defence was led by Henry John Boulton who was the solicitor general of the province but was acting as a private attorney. MacNab and Chewett were also lawyers for the defence and refused to testify at the trial to avoid self-incrimination. Gurnett and Andrew Steven, the deputy clerk for the Crown, also refused to testify for the same reason, and Steven argued that his subpoena to be a witness was improper. When the judge questioned the four about this excuse, Boulton stated that their refusals were proper, and the judge deferred to Boulton's judgement and told Rolph that if this judgement was appealed successfully, Rolph could sue these four witnesses for damages. This ruling prevented Rolph from asking these witnesses under oath about the identities of the other perpetrators.
John Rolph raised concerns that two of the accused in the incident were lawyers for the defence. Maitland assured those involved that the trial would be fair. The trial began in August 1827 and was reported nationally and internationally, with a full gallery during most of the proceedings.
Plaintiff's arguments In the opening statement, John stated that, although hesitant to represent his brother, he felt it would be a disservice if he represented others while declining his services to a relative. He described the action as "brutal" because the assailants were members of the aristocracy in Upper Canada and should have behaved as gentlemen. He noted that the jury was composed of men who were not members of the elite and that no one of their social standing participated in the attack. John argued during the trial that the assault was planned at the dinner Hamilton had scheduled at his home, and the tarring and feathering would have required the mob to purchase the materials ahead of time. John also stressed that the incident happened at night, which he argued meant that Upper Canadian law required additional criminality to the offence.
Witnesses testified that Simons told a neighbour about some of the details of the attack and that he was only ashamed that they lost the feathers and had to damage Rolph's property to get more. This implicated Simons as a member of the mob. A witness later stated that he saw Simons outside of the village at 2 am, but was unsure if Simons was in disguise.
Defence's arguments Macaulay refused to allow evidence that stated that the attackers were trying to separate Rolph from Mrs. Evans or that they were punishing Rolph for committing adultery, declaring that neither was a legal justification for the incident. The defence's arguments would constantly reference this argument, hoping that the jury would feel the attack was justified. The defence did not try to establish that the accused were innocent of committing the incident. Two witnesses spoke about Robertson's involvement with the incident: the sheriff, who overheard Robertson say that he was not present at the attack, and Robertson's brother, who stated that he did not think Robertson would participate in this kind of incident.
After a short deliberation, the jury found Simons and Hamilton liable and each had to pay £20 in damages to George. Macaulay instructed the jury to acquit Robertson due to the lack of evidence presented at the trial against Robertson; the jury obliged.
Civil trial aftermath After the trial, Maitland asked Macaulay to issue a report on the trial's decision. Macaulay's report stated that a belief that Rolph was committing adultery was not a strong enough justification for the attack, so he refused to allow evidence which addressed this accusation. After reading the report, Maitland stated that Simons and Hamilton would not be reappointed as judges in 1827 due to their guilty verdict in this case. Maitland's civil secretary noted that if the two had grounds to successfully appeal this verdict, they might have been reappointed to the positions.